pull down to refresh

277 sats \ 4 replies \ @Scoresby OP 5 Aug \ parent \ on: lowering minimum relay feerate may be bad for compact block relay - 0xB10C bitcoin
I think the issue is that not very many nodes are relaying sub 1sat /vByte transactions among their mempools and so when a new block is found that has such transactions in it, lots of nodes have to request full details about these transactions which means the new blocks propagate more slowly across the network.
@petertodd suggested that this was only an issue for miners who weren't running nodes that relayed sub 1sat/vByte transactions.
write
preview
112 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 5 Aug
Gotcha! Good explanation. I was on the right track. ahahah, appreciate it.
reply
102 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 5 Aug
That's also how I read Antoine's comment "we might want to backport this PR at least to 29." right underneath - though I'd personally be cautious with that (adding policy changes into a bugfix release tree)
reply
102 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 5 Aug
which means the new blocks propagate more slowly across the network.
Which in turn trends towards miner centralization, given the greater head start to the miner of the last block. This is one of the heaviest arguments against actually bigger blocks.
What I find most interesting is that this is quietly the final scaling frontier. Since throughput is already unlimited, and ownership is a result of fee-relative supply divided by distribution, lots of scale scammers are going to cope hard because lower chain fees drastically shrinks the market for their their centralized shadowchains.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nitter 5 Aug bot
https://xcancel.com/peterktodd/status/1952754386725175408
reply